Are deficiencies noticeable to them, noticeable to someone with lesser skills? Does this make a ski unsuitable for we who are less talented?
Also, what is an "intermediate" ski. My thinking is that it's one suitable for a skier just getting into full parallel turns and does not put a lot of energy into making a ski turn.
I ski the same Pulse ski referred to by HA, and, while it may not be a first choice to an "intermediate" skier, I think it would work, as it's not "quirky" for me. Skis that make Philpug really smile, generally are not my personal daily drivers, but, again, he just so much more demanding on what he gets from a ski due to his style and skills. I skied with Helluva one day on my Blizzard Sl's, which I enjoy, but, Greg commented that they are not very good by his standards.
What do you think?
I think some of the deficiencies are noticeable, and I think some aren't. A couple years ago, a very skilled friend was given a pair of GS skis, which he managed to damage within a couple weeks. He could feel that there was something inside the ski near the toepiece that had broken, and could demonstrate the way it messed up the flex so it was very obvious, but I couldn't feel a difference when skiing them. I think I wasn't getting forward enough to put pressure on the tips, so it wasn't affecting me.
On the other hand, last year I demoed the Bomber B1 SL skis, and wrote a glowing review here about them. I nearly bought a pair, but got distracted by something shiny and forgot about it. Over the summer, I was talking with another friend about them, and he said they weren't very good, compared to his skis. As it happened, he decided to get out of ski racing, and I was able to buy a pair of his SL's, which came out of the Head race department run that the WC skis are pulled from. I was quite surprised to ski them and find I could feel the difference. The ones I bought from him are incredibly smooth and very stiff for SL's. They also have this amazing flex pattern that seems to make them disappear underfoot. I forget they're there and, before I can even think "turn", I'm in the arc. It's really neat.
I think it's great to have really good skis, even for "the rest of us", because they come alive when we get it right, and inspire us to improve. If our skis respond by feeling sketchy or weird when we get it right, we'll think we did it wrong, and the incentive will be to ski worse.
From what little of them I've seen, "intermediate" skis are floppy pieces of junk with cores made of cheese. The edge-hold stinks, the flex is like a wet noodle, and they don't really reward any movement whatsoever. I don't understand the purpose of these, aside from hitting a price point. I have a friend who was a beginner the first time she talked me into letting her try my Supershape Magnums. She instantly loved them, and I spent a summer talking her out of buying a pair just like mine, and into buying something shorter that she could bend. I think a real intermediate ski would be something torsionally stiff, with a progressive but softer flex profile. That way they could get used to bending a ski at the speeds they ski, while still having useful edges.
I don't think you need to be Michael Schumacher to appreciate a Ferrari. You might not appreciate it as much, or in the same way, but you'll probably still like it better than a Lada.
Home
Login
Register